Order date – 10 January 2023

Parties: M/s. Auroglobal Comtrade Vs The Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Auroglobal Comtrade filed four refund claims on 25th April, 2011 in regard to service tax paid towards export of Iron Ore Fines of various quantities in terms of a notification dated 7th July, 2009.
• The claims were rejected on the ground that the shipping bills and bills of lading in all the cases were not in the name of the Appellant and since it was not the exporter of Iron Ore Fines, it is not entitled to refund in terms of the above notification.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is eligible for refund?

Order –

• The Tribunal held that as per Section 2(20) of the Act the term ‘exporter’ would include any owner or any person holding out to be the exporter. In other words, the person holding out to be the exporter (in this case M/s. Liberty and M/s. RIPL) need not be the exporter. It could well include an entity like the present Assessee which in fact entered into the agreement pursuant to which the export took place. 
• It was observed that the entire cost of effecting the export was borne by the Appellant. Importantly “the LC had been opened with the Bank by the Appellant”. The invoices of sale of goods were raised by the Appellant on the buyers and it is the Appellant which had remittances in its own name pursuant to the exports made.
• All the above factors go to show that it was in fact the Appellant which was the real exporter of the goods for the purpose of Section 2(20) of the Act. Hence the appellant is eligible for refund.